Tension! Wisc. Stats. §§ 968.24, 175.60(2g)c and Del. v. Prouse - 440 U.S. 648(1979)

Held:

1. This Court has jurisdiction in this case even though the Delaware Supreme Court held that the stop at issue not only violated the Federal Constitution but also was impermissible under the Delaware Constitution. That court's opinion shows that, even if the State Constitution would have provided an adequate basis for the judgment below, the court did not intend to rest its decision independently on the State Constitution, its holding instead depending upon its view of the reach of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 440 U. S. 651-653.

2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-663.

(a) Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief. The permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-655.

Page 440 U. S. 649

(b) The State's interest in discretionary spot checks as a means of ensuring the safety of its roadways does not outweigh the resulting intrusion on the privacy and security of the persons detained. Given the physical and psychological intrusion visited upon the occupants of a vehicle by a random stop to check documents, cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. 3. 873; United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, the marginal contribution to roadway safety possibly resulting from a system of spot checks cannot justify subjecting every occupant of every vehicle on the roads to a seizure at the unbridled discretion of law enforcement officials. Pp. 440 U. S. 655-661.

(c) An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. People are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalk; nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles. Pp. 440 U. S. 662-663.

(d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. P. 440 U. S. 663.

382 A.2d 1359, affirmed.

WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which POWELL, J., joined, post, p. 440 U. S. 663. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 440 U. S. 664.

Page 440 U. S. 650

Click to expand...

Herr Heckler Koch said:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/440/648/case.html

Click to expand...

bigdaddy1 said:

Not having the patience to read the entire cite, but it with in the first few paragraphs it seems like the evidence was suppressed. In order to get around this annoyance, I think cops will simply manufacture a reason as they have in the past. An example is in Wisconsin the police "can" pull you over for having a license plate frame. The kind you see all the time from the dealer. Their reasoning is it obstructs the total view of the plate, even though the areas that are covered have no information. Even if there is no legitimate cause what is to stop them from lying, and saying your tail light is out or you went over the center line. If a cop wants to stop you, he/she can come up with a reason easily enough. The whole premise of this particular cite is the cop made the mistake of honestly stating he had no viable reason for the stop. I don't see this case having any bearing on future cases unless the cop fails to "elaborate" a reason for a stop.

Click to expand...

rcawdor57 said:

True. Which is why I never drive without my mounted camera running with audio. These are the times we live in where we have to defend against dishonest people....

http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/voyager-car-camera-gps-logger.html

The camera system linked above is a very nice system.

Click to expand...

Nutczak said:

NICE, I have been wanting a system like this for quite a few years, as a matter of fact, the want started right after I got my first ever speeding ticket in a 4-wheeled vehicle! thw ticket was total BS because I was not speeding, the cop was looking for an OWI arrest and was pissed that I do not drink so he wrote me for speeding just to be a "Richard Cranium" with a sever case of "Cranial Rectulitis"

Click to expand...

stevepk said:

Don't run Video/Audio in Illinois. You'll end up in jail

Click to expand...

stevepk said:

Don't run Video/Audio in Illinois. You'll end up in jail

Click to expand...

stevepk said:

Don't run Video/Audio in Illinois. You'll end up in jail

Click to expand...

bigdaddy1 said:

I question the constitutionality of that, any test cases your aware of? Also can you post or reference the ordinance?

Click to expand...

Strict eavesdropping law ruled unconstitutional in Illinois case
Kirsten Berg
Date:
September 16, 2011

An Illinois judge ruled the state’s eavesdropping law unconstitutional as applied to a man who faced up to to 75 years in prison for secretly recording his encounters with police officers and a judge.

“A statute intended to prevent unwarranted intrusions into a citizen’s privacy cannot be used as a shield for public officials who cannot assert a comparable right of privacy in their public duties,” the judge wrote in his decision dismissing the five counts of eavesdropping charges against defendant Michael Allison.

“Such action impedes the free flow of information concerning public officials and violates the First Amendment right to gather such information,” he wrote.

Click to expand...

A woman who secretly recorded a conversation with two Chicago Police investigators while filing a sexual harassment complaint last August was acquitted of the felony eavesdropping charges Wednesday, with one juror calling the trial a "waste of time."

Click to expand...

The other case to challenge the wiretap law is that of Christopher Drew, an artist who was arrested in December 2009 for selling art without a permit on the streets of Chicago. Drew recorded his arrest, and now faces four to 15 years for documenting the incident.

In a hearing last December, Cook County Assistant State Attorney Jeff Allen invoked homeland security, arguing that Drew's recording could have picked up police discussing anti-terrorism tactics. Drew's case was suspended after he was diagnosed with lung cancer earlier this year.

Click to expand...